4 ms·

I guess the solution is to try to take some of the law's protecting child actors and apply them to influencers? https://www.wrapbook.com/blog/child-actor-labor

I guess the solution is to try to take some of the law's protecting child actors and apply them to influencers? https://www.wrapbook.com/blog/child-actor-labor-laws https://www.wrapbook.com/blog/child-actor-labor-laws I think it is hard, because influences are in random jurisdictions and just arise without much structure. Maybe it can be controlled at the platform level, like YouTube and TikTok as they are the ones funnel money to these influencers? It would require some creativity and a lot of desire.

ubermonkey 4y ago
I'm not some Rand-worshiping libertarian, but I do think the immediate response of (more or less) "there oughta be a law" whenever something negative gets press is maybe not ideal. These people should probably be shamed publicly for this kind of exploitation, for sure. And things like the Coogan law should be applied when the kids are a big part of the brand.
afavour 4y ago
I think it's really difficult because one person's heartwarming family content is another person's child exploitation. IMO there should be a rule that no children appear in public social media content (private would be fine) but I'm sure a great many people would be offended by that. It's tough when shitty parents have the legal right to be shitty.
- bhouston 4y ago
  Maybe a law where if your views of your videos with your kids have more than X followers or Y views on more Z videos -- it is definitely not just for friends and family and it isn't just a random video going viral. I could see that working. I think that the solution is to have all such people register with no exceptions. Just make X and Y and Z high enough that it excludes the large majority of people.
- omnicognate 4y ago
  "Heartwarming family content" is a wonderfully shuddersome phrase.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    [flagged]
bnralt 4y ago
I always found it strange that child labor laws have an exception for acting. From what I've seen, acting is probably a worse job for kids than many of the jobs that are outlawed.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  You could argue that acting is a child doing something they want to do as artistic expression. Like, could you ban a kid from playing a concert if they are good at violin or piano; or could you ban them from selling their artwork or their singing?
  - bnralt 4y ago
    People are fine with kids selling someone some arts and crafts they made, but most people don’t think children should be making things in factories. Likewise, a school play is completely different from the life that most children actors live.
    - Kye 4y ago
      Wil Wheaton talks about this a lot. A good entry point if you don't want to read through his blog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eoDeIw7G1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eoDeIw7G1I Seeing how he's overcome all that, beat alcohol, and was able to find a place in the world of media that was about his interests rather than his mother's is inspiring, but a lot of kids don't make it out so well-adjusted. And even here it took decades.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  It's because an adult can do almost all jobs where child labor would be used, usually it's just that adults are more expensive; but in acting we don't really want to say that movies are prohibited to show kids or that all kid roles must be played by adult actors. Like, do we want to make a rule that a family drama must be filmed without showing that family's kids? If not, then we have to permit child acting at least in some way.
_fat_santa 4y ago
The problem I see here is where would the "line" be? That is, when does that video you post on Instagram of your family at Disney or someone blowing out candles at a birthday stop being just a family video and starts being content? I guess the easy way to make that distinction would be if your content is "monetized" but even then it seems like there are many loopholes and gotchas.
- bhouston 4y ago
  I think you can have some triggers, like X views or Y followers and at least Z videos or something like that and also that they have monetization turned on. Make it high enough that it excludes 99.9% or more of people posting family videos.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    One problem with this approach is that a lot of times monetization in tiktok or instagram happens through third party sponsors/product placements, rather than directly between the platform and the content creator.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - mola 4y ago
    Not sure amount of views or likes really matter. If you are interested in profiting from your kid, you will actively promote their content. It's rare to reach a lot of popularity without active promotion. I would draw the line there. Actively promote your kid Social network content should be just banned.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- colechristensen 4y ago
  >That is, when does that video you post on Instagram of your family at Disney or someone blowing out candles at a birthday stop being just a family video and starts being content? When you do it on an account that makes money or is even tangentially involved with making money.

ubermonkey 4y ago

I'm not some Rand-worshiping libertarian, but I do think the immediate response of (more or less) "there oughta be a law" whenever something negative gets press is maybe not ideal. These people should probably be shamed publicly for this kind of exploitation, for sure. And things like the Coogan law should be applied when the kids are a big part of the brand.

afavour 4y ago

I think it's really difficult because one person's heartwarming family content is another person's child exploitation. IMO there should be a rule that no children appear in public social media content (private would be fine) but I'm sure a great many people would be offended by that. It's tough when shitty parents have the legal right to be shitty.

bhouston 4y ago
Maybe a law where if your views of your videos with your kids have more than X followers or Y views on more Z videos -- it is definitely not just for friends and family and it isn't just a random video going viral. I could see that working. I think that the solution is to have all such people register with no exceptions. Just make X and Y and Z high enough that it excludes the large majority of people.
omnicognate 4y ago
"Heartwarming family content" is a wonderfully shuddersome phrase.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  [flagged]

bnralt 4y ago

I always found it strange that child labor laws have an exception for acting. From what I've seen, acting is probably a worse job for kids than many of the jobs that are outlawed.

Eisenstein 4y ago
You could argue that acting is a child doing something they want to do as artistic expression. Like, could you ban a kid from playing a concert if they are good at violin or piano; or could you ban them from selling their artwork or their singing?
- bnralt 4y ago
  People are fine with kids selling someone some arts and crafts they made, but most people don’t think children should be making things in factories. Likewise, a school play is completely different from the life that most children actors live.
  - Kye 4y ago
    Wil Wheaton talks about this a lot. A good entry point if you don't want to read through his blog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eoDeIw7G1I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eoDeIw7G1I Seeing how he's overcome all that, beat alcohol, and was able to find a place in the world of media that was about his interests rather than his mother's is inspiring, but a lot of kids don't make it out so well-adjusted. And even here it took decades.
PeterisP 4y ago
It's because an adult can do almost all jobs where child labor would be used, usually it's just that adults are more expensive; but in acting we don't really want to say that movies are prohibited to show kids or that all kid roles must be played by adult actors. Like, do we want to make a rule that a family drama must be filmed without showing that family's kids? If not, then we have to permit child acting at least in some way.

_fat_santa 4y ago

The problem I see here is where would the "line" be? That is, when does that video you post on Instagram of your family at Disney or someone blowing out candles at a birthday stop being just a family video and starts being content? I guess the easy way to make that distinction would be if your content is "monetized" but even then it seems like there are many loopholes and gotchas.

bhouston 4y ago
I think you can have some triggers, like X views or Y followers and at least Z videos or something like that and also that they have monetization turned on. Make it high enough that it excludes 99.9% or more of people posting family videos.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  One problem with this approach is that a lot of times monetization in tiktok or instagram happens through third party sponsors/product placements, rather than directly between the platform and the content creator.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- mola 4y ago
  Not sure amount of views or likes really matter. If you are interested in profiting from your kid, you will actively promote their content. It's rare to reach a lot of popularity without active promotion. I would draw the line there. Actively promote your kid Social network content should be just banned.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
colechristensen 4y ago
>That is, when does that video you post on Instagram of your family at Disney or someone blowing out candles at a birthday stop being just a family video and starts being content? When you do it on an account that makes money or is even tangentially involved with making money.